If its gathering dust then sell it, what makes you think time will change your opinion? The 24-70ii is a beast compared to the 24-105.The 24-105 was great because its a 'good' all rounder lens at a cheap kit price.I've sold mine after getting the 24-70ii also, don't miss it at all unless you're planning to shoot video.

I just did a complete refresh of my gear, but I kept three items (7d, 24-105 and 70-200 F4L IS) because they were too good to sell. Also too useful as backup equipment. The 24-70ii and 70-200ii are my main lenses now. The 24-70ii took a bit of getting use to, but don't miss the IS as much as I initially thought. It is sharp, sharp, sharp! Kept the 24-105 for a walk about lens because of IS and wider focal range, for those times I only want to carry a single lens.

I did the AFMA on focal, but I've never been able to get true sharpness from this lens in darn near any situation. My prior workhorse was a Canon 17-55mm 2.8 on a T3i, and I didn't observe signiciant difference in the "upgrade" to the 24-105 (although, I felt color was noticeably better).

17-55 to 24-105 is actually a bit of downgrade in my opinion IQ-wise (although the converse is true for build quality and ergonomics). The 'upgrade' from APS-C to FF however more than makes up for this deficit.I tried my 24-105 (when I owned it) both on a FF (5DII) and on my APS-C (7D), and the results were clearly better on the FF. So if you noticed more flaws after you switched to the 5DIII, you probably had a bad copy.$ 800! Nice deal!

I love my 24-105. It's an absolutely fantastic lens with sharpness, color, and focal range that leave me stunned every time I use it (it's currently my main lens, so I use it a lot!). Perhaps I have a better copy than most, as I've tested it against a 24-70 2.8 Mk I and I thought it was sharper than the faster zoom, both wide open on the go and stopped down in the studio.

However, I'd sell the 24-105 in a heartbeat if I had the 24-70 II as I do a lot of low-light event shooting and the extra stop helps immensely. But for all my work where I need an f/4 or smaller aperture, I know I have a single lens I can take that will cover all the focal lengths I'll need... the 24-105.

I use my 24-105 at weddings, and find that for indoor portraits, eg at the bride's house, I use it at 80-105mm and get better results bouncing flash from ceilings. Being further away gets a more flattering light across people's faces. And even at f4, it's quite sharp enough in the centre and blurs backgrounds nicely. Works for me.

Thanks for all the feedback. It seemed like a really good price for a not-spectacular copy (but in all fairness, it was also in pristine condition). The buyer was also at a point in her hobby where I could see the 24-105mm as a big step-up in quality. Her enthusiasm made me feel good about selling it.

Maybe someday there will be an amazing mark ii version which can be the ultimate walkaround lens, but I'm plenty happy with my other current options. Now, if I can find some takers for my 17-55mm, 50 1.4, an old 18-200mm(!), etc...

I doubt you would have hard time selling 17-55 and 50 f1.4. Those are great lenses.

Thanks for all the feedback. It seemed like a really good price for a not-spectacular copy (but in all fairness, it was also in pristine condition). The buyer was also at a point in her hobby where I could see the 24-105mm as a big step-up in quality. Her enthusiasm made me feel good about selling it.

Maybe someday there will be an amazing mark ii version which can be the ultimate walkaround lens, but I'm plenty happy with my other current options. Now, if I can find some takers for my 17-55mm, 50 1.4, an old 18-200mm(!), etc...

I doubt you would have hard time selling 17-55 and 50 f1.4. Those are great lenses.

There is no comparison between the 24-70ii and the 24-105 is...24-70 is just incredibly sharp! All serious photographers need the 24-70ii and the 70-200ii in their kit!

Hmmm, suddenly I feel ... half-serious since I have only one of the two lenses...

I must be another of the half-serious ones, as I, too, only have the 70-200ii! But, I also have the 16-35ii, which I consider more useful than a 24-70 when I'm in a 2-lens situation. What falls between 35 and 70 seldom seems important to me. Then again, I've never considered myself "normal", at least photographically!

I do, though, have a 24-105, and, from what I read on here, mine must be one of the better copies. It's not as sharp as my 70-200 and certainly not as good as my 300/2.8, but I've never received complaints from clients. In fact, my tough critic (myself) is happy with its results almost all the time! And, for what I paid for it, I'm more than pleased. It's turned out to be much better than the earlier 24-70 I'd had.

I'm sure there is a great deal of truth in that. Still, forums are the new meeting place for photographers since the days of going to the lab several times a week become a distant memory. That was a great place to have quick conversations with other photographers. It can be quite an isolated profession.

But that's getting off-topic. I've kept my 24-105 f/4is after getting the amazing 24-70 f/2.8II. There are occasions where the IS is valuable, for events work the extra reach is valuable and it makes a great travel lens. I prefer to travel light and generally go with one body, a de-gripped 5D3 and the 24-105. After working all year with a dozen high class lenses within reach, vacationing with just the 24-105 is creatively stimulating as you are constantly pushed to make new decisions about how you're going to approach a subject. It's fun. Some hard working, busy photographers will travel with just a body and a 35 or a 50 prime, maybe with a Leica....or a Sony RX1!

$800 for a pre-owned 24-105 is a very high price. You may want to take it. But I'm certainly keeping mine.

I have 24-105 as kit on my 5D3 since day 1.Cannot afford the 24-70 II Due to copy variations, the Canon 24-70 mk1 and Tamron are not necessarily optically superior.Most of us use lightroom so I doubt you would be able to tell sharpness differences in post.

Thanks for all the feedback. It seemed like a really good price for a not-spectacular copy (but in all fairness, it was also in pristine condition). The buyer was also at a point in her hobby where I could see the 24-105mm as a big step-up in quality. Her enthusiasm made me feel good about selling it.

Maybe someday there will be an amazing mark ii version which can be the ultimate walkaround lens, but I'm plenty happy with my other current options. Now, if I can find some takers for my 17-55mm, 50 1.4, an old 18-200mm(!), etc...

I doubt you would have hard time selling 17-55 and 50 f1.4. Those are great lenses.

The question is, what are you going to do with the money?

1. 1D X2. 300 f2.8 IS II4. 400 f2.8 IS II5. 200-400

Get some Nikon lenses with EOS adapter maybe

I'm having a hard time selling the 17-55. Damn thing is in mint condition, cleaned by Canon inside and out and shoved straight back in the box. $799 but nada. I wonder if the Sigma 18-35 is swaying peoples decision?

I'm having a hard time selling the 17-55. Damn thing is in mint condition, cleaned by Canon inside and out and shoved straight back in the box. $799 but nada. I wonder if the Sigma 18-35 is swaying peoples decision?

I've had the exact same problem for probably six months. Still no takers at $700. I think part of my problem is I am in a small market. I can't tell you how many people have asked why it is so expensive even though it is "almost the same as the kit lens".

Logged

A few bodies, some flashes, a tripod here and there, a handful of lenses. Plenty of equipment, a lot of perseverance, but not enough talent (yet).

I'm having a hard time selling the 17-55. Damn thing is in mint condition, cleaned by Canon inside and out and shoved straight back in the box. $799 but nada. I wonder if the Sigma 18-35 is swaying peoples decision?

I've had the exact same problem for probably six months. Still no takers at $700. I think part of my problem is I am in a small market. I can't tell you how many people have asked why it is so expensive even though it is "almost the same as the kit lens".

Tell them to put the kit lens on in AF then try and turn the focus ring. That will break it and they'll have to buy the 17-55! Haha! Also, they've now learnt about Full Time Manual focus! See? Educational as well!

So I have a buyer lined up through CL to sell off my hardly-ever used 24-105mm for $800. Ever since purchasing the 24-70mm mk2, it has been gathering dust. I'm not lacking anything over that FL range, so it shouldn't bother me, but...

I just wonder, am I missing something obvious about this lens? I have wanted to love it since I bought it over a year ago. So many people on this forum and others extoll its virtues (IQ, versatility, IS). To be frank - I just haven't seen it. And I think it sounds great on paper - good FL range, IS, compactness. It SHOULD be my go-to walkaround lens. But it isn't.

I did the AFMA on focal, but I've never been able to get true sharpness from this lens in darn near any situation. My prior workhorse was a Canon 17-55mm 2.8 on a T3i, and I didn't observe signiciant difference in the "upgrade" to the 24-105 (although, I felt color was noticeably better).

I'd hate to have seller's remorse if there is some secret to its awesomeness I just haven't unlocked yet. Or maybe I just have a crap copy. I suppose since I'm getting about the same as I paid for it. No loss, and hopefully prices will be similar in the future if I want to try to jump in again. What do you think; will I regret it?

I've sold it three times and never a hint of seller's remorse! (buyer's remorse three times though, quick too, as no copy lasted more than 7 days in my house)

And man $800 for it? SELL IT SELL IT FAST! It's virtually impossible to get that much a new copy now, never mind used! Many used copies go $600 these days, even $550!!

Thanks for all the feedback. It seemed like a really good price for a not-spectacular copy (but in all fairness, it was also in pristine condition). The buyer was also at a point in her hobby where I could see the 24-105mm as a big step-up in quality. Her enthusiasm made me feel good about selling it.

Maybe someday there will be an amazing mark ii version which can be the ultimate walkaround lens, but I'm plenty happy with my other current options. Now, if I can find some takers for my 17-55mm, 50 1.4, an old 18-200mm(!), etc...

I doubt you would have hard time selling 17-55 and 50 f1.4. Those are great lenses.

The question is, what are you going to do with the money?

1. 1D X2. 300 f2.8 IS II4. 400 f2.8 IS II5. 200-400

Get some Nikon lenses with EOS adapter maybe

I'm having a hard time selling the 17-55. Damn thing is in mint condition, cleaned by Canon inside and out and shoved straight back in the box. $799 but nada. I wonder if the Sigma 18-35 is swaying peoples decision?

The 17-55 experiences more depreciation than some of canon's lenses. I sold a good condition (some dust inside) lens for 750 on amazon, and my take away was around 690. I actually bought it for 575, so I made a nice little profit off of it, but considering how much it costs new, it seems surprising.